The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.

[1]Mike Hedges: Bore
da, good morning. Can I welcome—? It says
‘everybody’, but I’ll welcome Neil and Gareth to
the meeting this morning. I’ll remind people you can speak in
Welsh or English. Headsets are available for translation of Welsh
to English. There is no need to turn off your mobile phones or
other electronic devices, but please ensure that any devices are in
silent mode. We’ve received apologies from Janet
Finch-Saunders.

09:09

Deisebau Newydd New Petitions

[2]Mike Hedges: The first new petition we’ve got is the
‘Penegoes Speed Limit Petition’, submitted with 298
signatures. It calls on us to urge the Welsh Government introduce a
30 mph speed limit through the village of Penegoes, from the
Penegoes village sign, entering from Machynlleth, to the other side
of the Maesperthi caravan park. A first-consideration letter was
sent to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on 20
October. We received a response on 5 November. We’ve had a
research briefing on the petition and related issues. The
petitioner submitted further comments, which are included in the
papers for the meeting that you should have before you.
They’re looking for a 30 mph speed limit. The Cabinet
Secretary refers to the Welsh Government’s trunk road safety
review, which concluded that existing speed limits should be
retained but that a detailed study be undertaken as part of the
engineering works on the section between Penegoes and Machynlleth
sometime from 2019-20 onwards. The petition will be taken into
account as part of the ongoing works. The petitioner has informed
the committee that a traffic monitoring scheme has recently
commenced in Penegoes and has offered to share the findings with
the committee once they are available. Do you think it would be
best if we wait for the result of the traffic monitoring and bring
it back then?

[3]Neil McEvoy:Yes.

[4]Mike Hedges:Okay. And we’ll send on the
additional information to the Minister.

[5]‘Protect Special Educational
Needs’—submitted by Nicola Butterfield, having
collected 553 signatures. It calls on

[6]‘the National Assembly for
Wales to urge the Welsh Government to ensure that spending on the
provision of special educational needs is ringfenced, recognising
that this is an investment in the children of Wales, and that local
authorities should be directed to ensure that adequate levels of
funding are available so that those children who require such
services are able to go on and live happy and fulfilled lives,
while their families are not left to contend with the fear of
competing with one another for placements.’

[7]A letter was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary on 25 October, and a response was received from the
Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language on 16 November. A
research briefing has been produced and the petitioner has
submitted further comments, which are included in the papers for
this meeting.

[8]As we know, education funding is
sent out via a formula and the revenue support grant, and funding
special educational needs is included in that. We’ve got a
Government policy, which I think is supported by nearly everybody,
that local authorities should have discretion on how they spend
money, based on local circumstances. SEN provision is budgeted to
be £362 million in 2016-17, which is a 1.5 per cent increase.
The Government has an additional learning needs transformation
programme, including new legislation, which was announced
yesterday.

[9]The petitioner’s experience in
Neath Port Talbot is that there is an annual competition for
placements for autistic children, which they feel means that the
current arrangements do not work for parents or children. The
petitioner also questioned how the Welsh Government ensured that
funding provided for SEN is used effectively in order to meet the
desired outcomes.

[10]I’m going to suggest that we
write to the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to
ask how the Government monitors the effectiveness of such services.
As it is specifically about Neath Port Talbot council, although
it’s a general petition, I think we should write to Neath
Port Talbot council and ask them for their views.

[11]Neil McEvoy:Yes.

[12]Mike Hedges: Then we’ve had a petition on the
‘Rights to Primary Health Care in
Welsh’—‘Hawliau i ofal iechyd sylfaenol yn
Gymraeg’—submitted by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, with
766 signatures. A first consideration was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on 2 November, and a
response was received from the Minister for Lifelong Learning and
Welsh Language on 16 November. We’ve had a research briefing
and we’ve told the petitioner that it will be discussed
today. What action do we wish to take?

[13]Gareth Bennett: There seems to be a consultation
ongoing.

[14]Mike Hedges: Yes.

[15]Gareth Bennett: I would suggest that we await the outcome of
the consultation.

[16]Mike Hedges: I think that’s one—. I think we
should also write to the Welsh Language Commissioner asking them
for their views.

[17]Neil McEvoy: Yes.

[18]Mike Hedges: Are you happy with that?

[19]Neil McEvoy: Yes.

[20]Mike Hedges: ‘Widen the A470 from Pontypridd to
Coryton to 3 Lanes’—submitted by Geraint Williams,
having collected 130 signatures. It was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills on 2 November. A
response was received on 21 November. We’ve had a research
brief. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be
considered by the committee, but has not responded. Has he still
not responded?

09:15

[21]Mr Francis:No.

[22]Mike Hedges: The letter
from the Cabinet Secretary highlights a
number of recent improvements to junction on the A470 between
Pontypridd and Coryton. The Welsh Government is also seeking to
improve park-and-ride and public transport facilities, including
through the south Wales Metro. However, the Cabinet
Secretary’s letter states that there are severe physical
constraints, which will make widening the A470

[23]‘particularly complex,
environmentally intrusive and costly.’

[24]I suggest we wait for further information
from the petitioner, who I personally have a huge amount of
sympathy with, having worked in Pontypridd before I came here. And
whilst I wasn’t involved in the traffic jam coming in, I used
to drive past it every day, so I’ve personally got a huge
amount of sympathy for them. Okay. So, we’ll wait for their
response.

[25]‘Give Rate Relief to Local
Authorities for Leisure and Cultural
Facilities’—submitted by Ryan Dansie, having collected
17 signatures. We sent it to the Cabinet Secretary for local
government on 2 November and received a response on 26 November.
We’ve had a research briefing. The petitioner was informed
that the petition would be considered by the committee but has not
responded. I ask Members what actions they would like to take. The
petitioner asks for rate relief to local authorities for leisure
and cultural facilities. The research brief outlines examples of
where community assets such as leisure centres and libraries have
been transferred to charitable trusts. The Cabinet
Secretary’s letter states that there can be benefits in
involving outside organisations in the delivery of local services,
and the Cabinet Secretary also states that the Welsh Government
will explore different options for the non-domestic rates scheme,
with a view to introducing improvements from 2018-19. I think that
we perhaps need to know what the Welsh Government intends to do and
ask for further information about their plans to explore
improvements to non-domestic rates, because it does seem to me
unfair if you have leisure centre A, run by the local authority,
which is paying rates, and, all of a sudden, leisure centre B,
which is run by a trust, which is funded by the local authority, is
not paying rates. It doesn’t seem an equitable playing field
there. So, I think we perhaps—. Should we write and ask the
Welsh Government?

[26]Neil McEvoy:Definitely. That’s just happened in Cardiff
right now. I believe they’ve effectively privatised the
leisure centres to avoid the rates.

[27]Mike Hedges:Rates and value added tax. I mean, it’s
exempt.

[28]Neil McEvoy:And there’s no control then over what is
happening.

[29]Mike Hedges:You pay the money and then somebody else makes the
decisions.

[30]Neil McEvoy:Yes.

[31]Mike Hedges:‘Funding for the Education Workforce Council
Registration Fee for Learning Support Workers in
Schools’—submitted by UNISON, with 752 signatures. It
was first considered on—. A letter was sent on 2 November to
the Cabinet Secretary for Education, with a response on 25
November. We’ve had a research briefing. The petitioner was
informed that the petition would be considered by the committee but
had not responded when papers were finalised. Currently, learning
support workers pay a registration fee of £15 per annum,
thanks to a Government subsidy of £34. The Cabinet
Secretary’s letter states that funding is ring-fenced for
2017-18and thereafter to
subsidise the registration fee for the whole of the education
workforce, including learning support workers. The subsidy for each
category of worker has not yet been announced. I think we need to
wait for the petitioner to come back to us, and we could request
further information from the Cabinet Secretaryabout the process for deciding individual subsidy
levels for 2017-18, and whether there will be an opportunity for
the petitioner, and others, to contribute their views to this. For
learning support workers, who tend to be amongst the lower-paid
people in schools, charging them £15 is something that is
having an effect on people’s lives; it’s not like
charging Assembly Members £15 to register, which probably
wouldn’t affect our lives massively. Okay? Yes.

[32]
‘Protect Families First Funding’—this was
submitted by Whitehead-Ross Education and Unison Neath Port Talbot
County Borough Council, having collected 24 signatures. At this
stage, can I say that I know both Iain Whitehead-Ross, who is of
Whitehead-Ross Education, and I know the secretary of Unison in
Neath Port Talbot council, but neither has lobbied me on this? I
just wanted to put that on the record.

[33]
The first consideration was sent to the Cabinet Secretary on 4
November. A response was received on 21 November. We’ve had a
research briefing. The petitioner has not responded. What do you
want to do? We know that the Families First budget will be kept at
the same level as 2016-17 for 2017-18, which I think is what they
were asking for in the first place. The Cabinet Secretary
won’t commit beyond March 2018. As we have an annual budget,
that’s not unreasonable. There’s a Welsh Government
news release saying that they are supporting Flying Start and
Families First. I think we’ve got to wait for a response from
the petitioners, but they’ve actually achieved what they
wanted to—the protection of the budget for next year. Whether
we’ll get another petition in this time next year asking
about it is another matter, but I think that what they’ve
asked for has been achieved. Okay?

[34]Mike Hedges: Updates to previous petitions: this is an issue
that I have been involved in as the local Member—‘To
improve access to Education and services in British Sign
Language’. This was submitted by Deffo! and first considered
on 24 March, with 502 online signatures and 660 paper signatures.
It says that the Assembly constituency is Swansea East. If I can
perhaps give some background and an explanation, it’s an
organisation of the deaf community based in the deaf centre in
Hafod in Swansea. They are very keen that British Sign Language is
given better support.

[35]
It was last considered on 8 December 2015, and the group have met
with Welsh Government officials and with Alun Davies, the Minister.
The suggestion is that we write to the Minister asking for an
update on the issues raised by the petition, following his recent
meeting with the petitioners. It’s an issue that I do have
some interest in because my sister is profoundly deaf. It is
something that is very important to the deaf
community—it’s support for British Sign Language. I
think it’s really important that we do bring it back to the
attention of the Minister.

[36]Neil McEvoy: Is there any way we could engage the wider deaf
community in this?

[37]Mike Hedges: Yes. It is engaged through the cross-party
group that Ann Jones chairs, where they are very keen on promoting
sign language. A large number of the deaf community communicate
almost wholly through sign.

[38]Mr Francis: Yes, and we could ask something like the
cross-party group on deaf issues to consider this or to write back
to this committee with their own views. For background information,
the previous committee, when considering this petition, has taken
evidence from the petitioners already. So, it’s entirely up
to you whether you would like to repeat that exercise, but in the
meantime we could seek views from elsewhere.

[39]Mike Hedges: I was a member of the cross-party group on deaf
issues in the last term, and I’m currently a member. They are
very keen on promoting British Sign Language, and one of the things
they’ve been asking for is a GCSE for British Sign Language.
A lot of jobs ask for either first language Welsh or first language
English at GCSE. That group are looking for first language British
Sign Language as well to be treated in exactly the same way and
given the same equality, because many people who are deaf are going
to have great difficulty in getting a GCSE at grade C or better in
either English or Welsh, but may well find it much easier to do it
in British Sign Language, which is their main method of
communication. They are first language British Sign Language. So,
we’ll write to the Minister. Okay.

[40]
‘Teachers' Training Must Include Statutory Training in
Autism’—

[41]Neil McEvoy: May I declare an interest here because I know
the person, but he hasn’t lobbied me on it?

[42]Mike Hedges:It was submitted by Tim Thomas and considered on 11
October, and has 316 signatures. The committee last considered the
petition on 11 October, and has written to the Cabinet
Secretary for Education to ask whether the Government intends to
address autism in teachers’ training through the forthcoming
Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, and
the planned timetable for this. We’ve had a response from the
Cabinet Secretary. On 30 November, the Minister for Social Services
and Public Health also issued a written statement on autism
services. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be
considered by the committee, and provided with copies of these
documents, but has yet to respond.

[43]
The letter of the Cabinet Secretary states that the Welsh
Government has decided not to include specific provisions for
autism in the ALN and education tribunal Bill. The Government
intends to consider future legislation on autism once the impact of
the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and the Welsh
Government’s refreshed action plan on autism are better
understood. Reforms to initial teacher education in Wales are under
way, and previous correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary also
states that qualified teachers are required to demonstrate that
they take account of the needs of pupils with special educational
needs as part of their professional standards.

[44]
I think we need to wait for the petitioner to come back to us.
Amongst our general things, shall we ask the National Autistic
Society for their view? One of the things I think we’ve been
very good at is going out to third party bodies who are experts in
this. Are we happy to do that? Yes.

[45]
‘Trees in Towns’: this was submitted by Coed Cadw
Woodland Trust and was first considered on 8 March, having
collected 2,258 signatures. The committee last considered it on 13
September and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Environment and Rural Affairs to ask for guidance to be produced on
the benefits that trees can offer in towns and cities and on
improving canopy cover, and Natural Resources Wales to ask what
support it provides for planting individual street trees in towns
and cities. We’ve had a response from the Cabinet Secretary
on the 11 October; the petitioner has also provided further
comments. The committee received a response from Natural Resources
Wales on 7 December. Due to the late receipt of the response, the
petitioner has not had an opportunity to comment on this prior to
the meeting. Can I suggest we give them an opportunity to
comment?

[46]Neil McEvoy: Yes.

[47]Mike Hedges: Economy
and infrastructure, ‘Include a Mynachdy and Talybont Station
as Part of the Cardiff Metro Proposal’: the petition was
submitted by Dr Ashley Wood and was first considered on 1 November,
having collected 137 signatures. The committee last considered the
petition on 1 November and agreed to await the views of the
petitioner on the Government’s response before determining
how to progress the petition. The petitioner has now submitted
further comments.

[48]
The petitioner welcomes the intention of the Welsh Government to
consider a new station in the area during the development of the
south Wales metro. They are seeking clarity on the potential
location of a station, and have provided detailed information on
where they believe it should be sited. Can we write to the Cabinet
Secretary with their suggestions on potential locations and asking
where they’re considering in Gabalfa?

[49]Neil McEvoy: Yes.

[50]Mike Hedges:I look to Neil who knows this area better than I do.
They’ve asked for Mynachdy and Talybont, but somewhere in the
Gabalfa area is really what we are likely to be pushing
for.

[51]Neil McEvoy:Yes, I think that makes sense.

[52]Mike Hedges:Okay. ‘Restoration of Inpatient Beds, Minor
Injuries Cover and X-Ray Unit to the Ffestiniog Memorial
Hospital’: the petition was submitted in June 2014,
with 2,754 signatures, and
last considered on 13 September, when it was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. The committee have
agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary and the petitioner again
later in the autumn for a report on progress. The petitioner has
recently submitted copies of recent correspondence with the First
Minister and the chief executive of Healthcare Inspectorate Wales
for the committee’s attention.

[53]
The First Minister restates that the Welsh Government position is
that health services in Blaenau Ffestiniog are a matter for Betsi
Cadwaladr. The same position was outlined by the Cabinet Secretary.
Healthcare Inspectorate Wales states that it has written to Betsi
Cadwaladr on provision of healthcare in the area, and is currently
considering the response received. Can we seek a copy of the
Healthcare Inspectorate Wales’s conclusions? Could we also
write to Betsi Cadwaladr and ask them an update on their views on
it? When that comes back, we can decide how to take it forward. Are
we happy with that?

09:30

[54]
‘Stop Closure of Consultant-led Maternity Unit at Ysbyty Glan
Clwyd’, submitted in June 2015, with 562 signatures: the
previous committee last considered it on 2 June 2015 and agreed to
seek comments from the petitioner and await the outcome of legal
action before deciding how to pursue the petition. As part of the
process of bringing existing petitions to the attention of the
Petitions Committee, the clerking team has received an update from
the Research Service on the current petition in relation to
proposed changes pertaining to the petition. The petitioner was
informed that the petition would be considered, but had not
responded when the papers for the committee were being finalised.
There are no ongoing legal issues at the moment. A formal
consultation on temporary changes to obstetrics and gynaecology,
and associated changes to neonatal services and breast services,
was conducted by Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board
between August and October 2015. In December 2015, the board of
Betsi Cadwaladr decided there would be no temporary change to
existing service configuration or obstetric gynaecology services
and consultant-led obstetric services.

[55]
In July, the board received a report from the Royal College of
Obstetrics and Gynaecologists in relation to options for the
configuration of longer-term services. This concluded that
maternity services were safe as a consequence of the actions being
taken, but that exceptional working above and beyond by staff
within the service, and extremely heavy reliance on locum staff,
could not be regarded as sustainable. The report concluded that
significant change within both working practices and service design
were needed to achieve a long-term sustainable future for the
service.

[56]
In November 2016, the board received the maternity and neonatal and
paediatric framework for the health board, which sets out a
framework for developing a strategy for these services over the
coming months, working and engaging with partner organisations and
stakeholders, including women and their families, with intent to
co-designing future models of care. The proposed temporary changes
at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in the petition have not been implemented. I
think we can close the petition, but, before we do that, shall we
ask the petitioner for their views?

[57]Neil McEvoy: Yes, I think so, yes.

[58]Mike Hedges: But they appear to have achieved what they set
out to achieve. Okay. Can I thank everybody for their attendance at
the meeting and close it?